|
| The Global Freedom Institute |
| American Democracy: Are Voters Destroying it? Democracy rests on the principles that people vote for the people that best represent their interests. One of the reason democracy and capitalism are supposed to work so well together is the democratic practice of voting those who no longer represent your interests out of office. Why is it that there is some great promise, seemingly every year that gets forgotten or wasted? Several years ago, term limits were the topic. The logic of this makes little sense. Voters are natural term limits. Why the need for arbitrary limits? Campaign finance reform is back. Why? Because they didn�t do it right the first time. Will any meaningful reform happen? Of course not. Why not? Because Americans will look at any bill passed as solving the problem, so they no longer need to worry about it. However, the issue will arise again in a decade or so. Why does this continually happen? Politicians bring out a nice song and dance about doing something, yet they don�t. They know that after a lot of attention has been paid to an issue, they pass some shell game version of that issue, and Americans go back to their daily lives. Or it gets tangled up in some committee and lost, but people hear that something was proposed and forget about it, assuming it will pass. Machiavelli once wrote that government must give the people just enough to maintain control over them so they won�t revolt. This is what our government does. It limits its power only enough to keep people from revolting. It maintains the illusion of working for the people, while working for the people who pay the most. Legalized prostitution, where the voters get screwed. The largest part of the problem is people. The political theory is that half of all people who can vote, register to vote. About half of those who register actually vote. And over half of those that vote, vote ignorantly for their party, rather than a candidate. If that theory is true, than about one eighth of the people who can vote, actually think about what or who they are voting for. That number is probably generous in terms of assuming that people actually know what or whom they are voting for. The Presidency is only an example of this theory. A large majority thought Gore was the environmental candidate who would protect our environment at all costs. Few actually looked to find out that not only did he own stock in Occidental Petroleum, but he and his father had links to Armand Hammer, who ran Occidental Petroleum and bought influential favors dating as far back as Roosevelt. Though Hammer is dead now, the practice persists with links to the same company that made its billions thanks to political favors. For example, Gore influenced additional money to go to the war on drugs and Columbia. It turns out it was for a region that was experiencing �rebel� attacks, but Occidental Petroleum happened to be drilling for oil in. That is just one of many examples for Al Gore. George W. Bush, the man of �integrity and honor� was hardly either. Few actually knew of Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, of the National Guard, and his interview where he points to Bush �representatives� who accessed Bush�s military records in 1999 prior to his announcing for President, in order to alter them. Few know of Bush�s change of driver�s license number in 1995, something so rare in Texas that reporters didn�t even think to check for a number change when initially tracking down the DUI story a year prior to the election. Even fewer took the time to notice that Bush, when he was governor of Texas, he went far right in his first two years, then moderate to prepare for the election for the last two years. Then they get surprised when he goes far right in his first month and wonder why, thinking he was a moderate. These are but a few of the many examples for Bush. While it would be easy to look at Bush and Gore and think they are the only problems. However, this is far from true. The recent findings of the U.S. Navy submarine accident with 16 civilians on board revealed that this is a common practice. Civilian donators have been getting these rides for over 10 years. Clinton�s Lincoln Bedroom scandals were just a greater use of the White House bedrooms than had been used in the past, but a common practice nonetheless. Recently, Paul Adler, a former Rockland County Democratic chairman, pleaded guilty to tax evasion and mail fraud charges as part of a plea bargain. This plea bargain included a confession to taking money for influence in getting a local subdivision approved. Amazingly, Paul Adler also helped to raise funds for Hillary Clinton in her New York Senate Campaign. Edward Jay Epstein, in a 1997 interview on his book, �Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer�, explained just how the influence peddling works. Hammer was not partisan in his search for influence. Epstein explains Hammer had influence in every administration from Roosevelt through George H. W. Bush, excluding Reagan. However, also admits that Hammer was seen with Nancy Reagan on several occasions. Hammer would do things like donate $1 million to the first lady�s favorite charity, donate to campaigns, to presidential libraries (another million to the Reagan Library for example), inaugurations, etc. In return for this, Hammer received favorable legislation and regulations, as well as connections to foreign governments for his business interests. But Hammer wasn�t just limited to presidents. Hammer also �invested� in congressmen, such as Al Gore Sr., the most noteworthy of them, as well as others in the Republican and Democratic parties. With all the information that Mr. Epstein was able to find, one has to wonder why the media never found or reported it? Hammer also had links to the Soviet Union. So much so, that Stalin and Lenin agreed that Hammer would be their link to American Business and influence. The information was so obvious to J. Edgar Hoover, that he had Hammer tracked for years. But knew the political ramifications of telling the president, who Hammer had already become friends with, if he had informed the president about such practices. Reagan only avoided Hammer because he was informed that Hammer may be a spy or a Soviet information source prior to meeting Hammer. Hammer had huge influence, but he isn�t alone in this world. 1 2 |
|
|